The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public issue, specifically the resignation of Garry Kasparov from the Aspen Institute Commission and his comparison of the commission's approach to practices in the USSR. The statement addresses concerns about governance and institutional practices, which are relevant to civic dialogue.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the comparison to the USSR could be seen as inflammatory or provocative. This could potentially harm the reputation of the Aspen Institute. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on institutional practices rather than personal attacks. There is no evidence of cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more critical in nature.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism of the Aspen Institute's practices but does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It is a form of constructive criticism, though the comparison to the USSR could be seen as harsh. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to raise concerns about institutional practices. It is a responsible use of the platform, though the tone could be seen as provocative. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.